December 27, 2007
Huck-a-Whack, December 27, 2007
Mike Huckabee is still giving paid speeches and he is charging up to $25,000 per appearance. When asked about the practice, Huckabee responded,
"Unlike the members of the Senate or Congress who continue to get their paycheck and get a taxpayer-funded salary, and unlike people who are independently wealthy, if I don't work, I don't eat."
Do I even need to offer my thoughts?
2008 Race
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at December 27, 2007 8:40 PM
I don't mind that too much. "Tradition" is not inherently right or proper, and nobody's being forced to hire him for a gig. What I find sad is that he has to defend the amount charged. Nobody should *ever* have to defend what they receive in a voluntary transaction. Those hiring Hucksterbee or others aren't being forced to pay more than they're willing; if they didn't want to pay $25,000 a pop, why did they pay it after all?
On the other hand, the sanctimonious f*** inserted another Biblical reference. It's another example of his pandering to evangelicals, who tend to be very familiar with scriptures (and where a certain phrase originated).
I don't mind that too much. "Tradition" is not inherently right or proper, and nobody's being forced to hire him for a gig. What I find sad is that he has to defend the amount charged. Nobody should *ever* have to defend what they receive in a voluntary transaction. Those hiring Hucksterbee or others aren't being forced to pay more than they're willing; if they didn't want to pay $25,000 a pop, why did they pay it after all?
On the other hand, the sanctimonious f*** inserted another Biblical reference. It's another example of his pandering to evangelicals, who tend to be very familiar with scriptures (and where a certain phrase originated).
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 28, 2007 9:23 AMI don't really have a problem with him giving paid speeches either. However, his justification for doing so is clearly lacking.
Posted by: HB at December 28, 2007 10:08 AMI don't have a problem at all with his justification. His income is derived from purely voluntary transactions, whether or not the rest of us consider the cost worthwhile.
On the other hand, taxpayers are coerced into paying for the salaries and offices of elected representatives and bureaucrats they neither like nor want.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 28, 2007 1:09 PMHis justification is a blatant populist appeal to pity. If he had simply said that every man has a right to make a living as he sees fit, then I would have no problem with his response. However, his answer was an attempt to put down his opponents -- especially Romney -- as not being average Joes. His pandering is becoming increasingly tiresome.
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at December 28, 2007 4:12 PM | What do you think? [4]